Judith Watson

Background: Strong compression is a recommended first line venous leg ulcer treatment. With limited research comparing the clinical effectiveness of compression wraps (CW) and two-layer compression bandage treatments with evidence-based compression (EBC) (four-layer compression bandages and two-layer compression hosiery), this study aimed to evaluate their clinical effectiveness on time to venous leg ulcer healing. Methods and findings: A pragmatic, three-arm, randomised controlled trial in 33 United Kingdom primary, community and hospital sites between 03.02.2021 and 31.08.2024. Adults with a venous leg ulcer appropriate for compression therapy were randomised 1:1:1 to be offered CW, two-layer bandage, or EBC (two-layer hosiery or four-layer bandage). Participants and clinical staff were not blinded. The primary outcome was time to blind assessed ulcer healing (date of ulcer healing: date of earliest photograph showing healing). Analyses included a noninferiority comparison of two-layer bandage and EBC (handling key intercurrent events under hypothetical and treatment policy strategies), and superiority comparisons of CW with both EBC and two-layer bandage (handling key intercurrent events under a treatment policy strategy). Healing times were analysed using Cox proportional hazards regression adjusted for fixed effects (treatment allocation, baseline ulcer area and duration, participant age, and mobility status), and shared frailties (recruitment site). The trial was pre-registered: ISRCTN67321719. 637 participants were randomised to be offered CW ( n = 213), two-layer bandage ( n = 211) or EBC ( n = 213). Mean age was 70.3 (range 24.6 to 97.0) years, 55% ( n = 351) were male, and the majority ( n = 606, 95%) were white. 633 participants contributed time at risk of healing and were included in the analysis. Using a treatment policy strategy to handle key intercurrent events (modified intention-to-treat analysis), the estimated hazard ratio (HR) for the noninferiority comparison (EBC and two-layer bandage) was 1.01 (95% CI [0.79, 1.28]), meeting the pre-specified noninferiority margin of 1.33. The corresponding hypothetical strategy analysis gave a HR of 1.16 (95% CI [0.86, 1.58]), which did not demonstrate noninferiority. For the superiority comparisons, healing was slower in the CW group than in the EBC group (HR 0.78, 95% CI [0.61, 1.00]; p = 0.046). Results were similar for the two-layer bandage group (HR 0.79, 95% CI [0.61, 1.01]; p = 0.056), although this did not reach statistical significance. Both comparisons showed considerable statistical uncertainty, with confidence intervals ranging from a 39% reduction in the hazard of healing to little or no difference between groups. Nine serious adverse events occurred; one potentially related to treatment (cause of death could not be ascertained). Departures from allocated compression treatment were common, which limits generalisability to settings with different adherence patterns. These departures, lower than expected ulcer healing incidence rates and slight under-recruitment, resulted in the number of healing events being smaller than the number required for 80% power. Conclusion: CW is unlikely to reduce the time to venous leg ulcer healing compared to two-layer bandage or EBC, although confidence intervals included treatment effects indicating little or no difference between groups. Despite remaining uncertainty, these findings may not support CW as a first line strong compression treatment for venous leg ulcers. Trial registration: ISRCTN – reference 67321719.

Introduction: Diabetic foot ulceration represents a prevalent, persistent and resource-intensive complication of diabetes. These ulcers are slow to heal, prone to recurrence and impose a substantial burden on both patients and healthcare providers. The reducing the impact of diabetic foot ulcers (REDUCE) intervention has been designed as a multifaceted approach targeting psychological and behavioural determinants linked to diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) outcomes. Following a successful pilot trial, the REDUCE trial has been designed as a pragmatic, multicentre randomised trial to compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the REDUCE intervention plus usual care versus usual care alone in reducing recurrence in people with healed DFUs. Additionally, there is an embedded process evaluation and two sub-studies which will be carried out alongside the main trial. Methods and analysis: Adults over 18 years of age, with a recently healed DFU and two lower limbs, will be identified from around 30 specialist multidisciplinary diabetic foot clinics at participating National Health Service Trusts in the UK. Patients with active Charcot neuro-osteoarthropathy, active DFU or ulcers healed for more than 12 weeks will be excluded. We will aim to recruit 544 participants (1:1 randomisation). The primary outcome for this trial will be total ulcer-free days with limbs intact (ie, without amputation) between randomisation and the end of follow-up (18 months post-randomisation). Secondary outcomes include time to re-ulceration, total number of ulcers, amputation, quality of life (EQ-5D-5L), Patient Health Questionnaire-9, Nottingham Assessment of Functional Footcare, ICEpop capability measure for adults and resource use. As part of the process evaluation, up to 20 REDUCE intervention patient-participants will be interviewed, and the healthcare professionals delivering the intervention will also be interviewed. An assessment of intervention fidelity will also be carried out. Ethics and dissemination: Ethics approval was granted by Wales 3 Research Ethics Committee (REC reference 22/WA/0053) on 16 March 2022. The findings will be presented at relevant conferences and disseminated via peer-reviewed research publications and to relevant stakeholders. Trial registration number: ISRCTN15570706 .

Background: Technology advances mean alternatives to hand-painted artificial eyes are possible, but the feasibility of conducting a large-scale trial is unknown. The aim was to assess the feasibility of collecting healthcare resource use and associated costs needed to undertake a large-scale randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of hand-painted artificial eyes with digitally-printed artificial eyes. Methods: Participants wore a digitally-printed artificial eye and a hand-painted artificial eye, for two weeks each, in a random order. Individual patient-level data was used to explore health outcomes (EQ-5D-5L) and resource use. Costs of the two artificial eye services were collected. A full economic evaluation was not conducted. An appropriate economic evaluation framework was developed to identify the relevant health economic data necessary for a future full trial. Results: Thirty-five participants were randomised. Response rates were 97–100% for the EQ-5D-5L. Resource use questions were less well completed: 54% complete responses at baseline, 40% partial responses and 6% missing/invalid responses. The two follow-up points had similar rates. Eye services cost data were well completed. Mean utility was 0.77 after wearing the hand-painted eye and 0.83 after the digitally-printed eye. Average manufacturing times were 294 min (digitally-printed) and 355 min (hand-painted). Remake appointments were needed for digitally-printed eyes only. Estimated cost for the digitally-printed eye service is £404 and £347 for the hand-painted eye. Time between fitting and final evaluation was 56 days (digitally-printed eye) and 60 days (hand-painted). Results should be interpreted with caution, as estimates were based on a small sample. Conclusion: It was possible to collect EQ-5D-5L, healthcare resource use and manufacturing times allowing a costing to be calculated. Thus, a large-scale RCT with full cost-effectiveness analysis would feasible. Refinements are suggested. Future economic analysis should consider how best to evaluate the service, possibility with modelling rather than within-trial analysis only. Trial registration: ISRCTN85921622.

Introduction Thousands of patients with mental illness are admitted to acute adult mental health wards every year in England, where local guidance recommends that all mental health settings be entirely smokefree. Mental health Trusts presently invest substantial effort and resources to implement smoke-free policies and to deliver tobacco dependence treatment to patients. Providing adequate support can help those who smoke remain abstinent or quit smoking during their smoke-free inpatient stay and beyond. At present, little is known about how best to support patients to prevent their return to pre-admission smoking behaviours after discharge from a smoke-free mental health inpatient stay. We have developed an intervention which includes targeted resources to support smoking-related behaviour change in patients following discharge from a smoke-free mental health setting. The aim of this trial is to determine the feasibility of a large-scale clinical trial to test the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the SCEPTRE intervention, compared with usual care. Methods and analysis This feasibility study will be an individually randomised, controlled trial in eight National Health Service mental health Trusts recruiting adults (≥18 years) admitted to an acute adult mental health inpatient setting who smoke tobacco on admission, or at any point during their inpatient stay. Consenting participants will be randomised to receive a 12-week intervention consisting of components aimed at promoting or maintaining positive smoking-related behaviour change following discharge from a smoke-free mental health inpatient setting or usual care. Data will be collected at baseline, 3 months and a second timepoint between 4 and 6 months post-randomisation. With 64 participants (32 in each group), the trial will allow a participation rate of 15% and completion rate of 80% to be estimated within a 95% CI of ±3% and ±10%, respectively. The analysis will be descriptive and follow a prespecified plan. Ethics and dissemination Ethics approval was obtained from the North West—Greater Manchester West Research Ethics Committee. We will share results widely through local, national and international academic, clinical and patient and public involvement networks. The results will be disseminated through conference presentations, peer-reviewed journals and will be published on the trial website: https://sceptreresearch.com/. Trial registration number ISRCTN77855199.

Introduction Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is two to three times more common in people with severe mental illness (SMI) than in the general population. Supporting self-management in diabetes is fundamental to improving clinical outcomes. The DIAMONDS trial aims to evaluate the clinical and cost effectiveness of a novel, codesigned, supported diabetes self-management programme for people with T2DM and SMI. Methods and analysis This multicentre, two-armed, parallel, individually randomised controlled trial will be conducted in National Health Service mental health trusts across England. We will recruit 380 participants (≥18 years old) with a diagnosis of SMI (schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, schizoaffective disorder, psychosis and severe depression) and T2DM. Eligible and consenting participants will be randomised to the DIAMONDS intervention or treatment as usual. The intervention group will receive one-to-one sessions with a trained DIAMONDS Coach for six months. These sessions will focus on goal setting, action planning and diabetes self-management education, supported by a paper-based workbook and an optional digital application. Individuals allocated to the control group will continue to receive usual care and may be offered National Institute for Health and Care Excellence-recommended generic diabetes self-management education programmes in line with usual practice. The primary outcome is the difference in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) between both groups at 12 months postrandomisation. The secondary outcomes include measures of physical and mental health, diabetes complications and physical activity. Economic and process evaluations will also be performed. Outcomes will be collected at baseline and at six and 12 month post-randomisation. Ethics and dissemination This study received ethics approval by the West of Scotland Research Ethics Committee 3 (22/WS/0117). Findings will be published in peer-reviewed, academic and professional journals. We will also be producing plain language summaries, infographics and audio summaries on the website, as well as attending conferences and dissemination events. A summary of the results will be distributed to all participants and other relevant stakeholders, and we will use social media channels, websites and knowledge exchange events to communicate our findings beyond academic audiences. Trial registration number ISRCTN22275538.

Background/objectives: Over 60,000 patients in the United Kingdom are estimated to have artificial eyes. Manufacturing and hand-painting of artificial eyes have not changed significantly since 1948. Delays and colour-matching issues may severely impact a patient’s rehabilitation pathway. Technology advances mean alternatives are now possible. This cross-over, randomised feasibility trial aimed to determine the feasibility of conducting a full-scale trial of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of digitally-printed artificial eyes compared to hand-painted. Subjects/methods: Patients aged ≥18 years who were longstanding artificial eye users requiring a replacement were randomised to receive either a hand-painted or digitally-printed eye first followed by the other type of eye. Participants were asked to approach a close contact (CC) willing to participate alongside them. A subset of participants, their CCs, and staff were interviewed about their opinions on trial procedures, artificial eyes, delivery times and satisfaction. Results: Thirty-five participants were randomised and 10 CCs consented. Participant retention at final follow-up was 85.7%. Outcome data completion rates ranged from 91–100%. EQ-5D-5L completion ranged from 83–97%. Resource-use completion ranged from 0–94% with total costs at £347 for hand-painted and £404 for digitally-printed eye. There were two adverse events. Twelve participants, five CCs, and five staff were interviewed. There were positive and negative features of both types of eyes. We identified that social and psychological wellbeing is affected, often for many years after eye removal. Participation in the feasibility study was well accepted. Conclusions: The feasibility study outcomes indicate that a full trial is achievable. Trial registration number: ISRCTN85921622.

Background: Differences in the way autistic children experience the world can contribute to anxiety and stress. Carol Gray’s Social Stories™ are a highly personalised intervention to support children by providing social information about specific situations in an individual story. Objectives: This randomised controlled trial aimed to establish whether Social Stories are clinically effective and cost-effective in improving social responsiveness and social and emotional health in children on the autism spectrum in schools. Design: A multisite pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial comparing Social Stories with care as usual. Setting: Eighty-seven schools (clusters) across Yorkshire and the Humber. Participants: Two hundred and forty-nine children were randomised via a bespoke system hosted at York Trials Unit (129 Social Stories and 120 care as usual). Recruitment was completed in May 2021. Participants were children aged 4–11 years with a diagnosis of autism, alongside teachers, interventionists and caregivers. Recruitment was via schools, NHS trusts, support groups and local publicity. Intervention: The intervention included training for educational professionals and caregivers covering psychoeducation and implementation of Social Stories. Stories were written around contextualised goals around the child’s need for social information. Interventionists read the Social Story™ with the child at least six times over 4 weeks during school. Main outcome measure: The primary outcome was the Social Responsiveness Scale-2 completed by teachers at 6 months (the primary end point), which measures social awareness, cognition, communication and behaviour. Data were collected from caregivers and educational professionals at 6 weeks and 6 months through questionnaires. Blinding of participants was not possible. Results: At 6 months, the estimated difference in expected teacher-reported Social Responsiveness Scale-2 T-score (the primary end point) was −1.61 (95% confidence interval −4.18 to 0.96, p = 0.220), slightly favouring the intervention group. The estimated differences for the parent-reported secondary outcomes at 6 months were small and generally favoured the control group except the measure of children’s quality-adjusted life-year (+ 0.001, 95% confidence interval −0.032 to 0.035) and parental stress (−1.49, 95% confidence interval −5.43 to 2.46, p = 0.460), which favoured the intervention group. Children in the intervention group met their individual goals more frequently than children who received usual care alone (0.97 confidence interval 0.21 to 1.73, p = 0.012). The intervention is likely to save small costs (−£191 per child, 95% confidence interval −767.7 to 337.7) and maintain a similar quality of life compared to usual care. The probability of Social Stories being a preferred option is 75% if the society is willing to pay £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Limitations include considerable disruptions during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Conclusion: Social Stories are used in schools and represent a low-cost intervention. There is no clinically evident impact on social responsiveness, anxiety and/or depression, parental stress or general health. Benefits were observed for specific behavioural goals as assessed by the teacher, and Social Stories may serve as a useful tool for facilitating dialogue between children and school staff to address specific behavioural challenges. Usage should be at the school’s discretion. Future work: Given the uncertainty of the results in light of coronavirus disease 2019, further work to establish the impact of Social Stories is merited. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN11634810. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 16/111/91) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 39. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Purpose: Artificial eye users (AEUs) can experience a negative impact on psychological and emotional wellbeing, including reduced social functioning, which may be a consequence of living with one eye removed, and/or of having a prosthetic eye. This may have wider consequences for their families. We aimed to explore what it means to live with a prosthetic eye, for both AEUs and their families—and how any quality of life (QoL) issues impact on their day-to-day functioning. Methods: A subset of AEUs and their family members taking part in a feasibility randomised controlled trial comparing hand-painted to digitally printed artificial eyes were invited for semi-structured interviews. Transcripts were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative results related to trial participation are covered elsewhere. Here, we focus on QoL and day-to-day functioning. Results: Twelve AEUs (eight males) and five spouses (one male) who had worn artificial eyes for 2–65 years took part, and four themes were identified. (1) Impact on day-to-day life: AEUs and their spouses have to adapt to (partial) sight loss, reduced levels of confidence, and social withdrawal. (2) Impact on psychological and emotional wellbeing: distress among AEUs and their spouses can be severe and prolonged, highlight unmet support needs. (3) Challenges with treatment experiences: AEUs experienced negative impact of fragmentation of care and long waiting times. (4) Worries about the future: AEUs mentioned fragility of remaining sight, and concerns around potential need for further treatment. Conclusion: Patients and their family members experience negative impact of being an AEU on their everyday lives and quality of life. There is a potential role for psychosocial support services in supporting AEUs and their families even long after eye loss.

Objective: To determine the acceptability and feasibility of delivering early outpatient review following cardiac surgery and early cardiac rehabilitation (CR), compared to standard practice to establish if a future large-scale trial is achievable. Methods: A randomised controlled, feasibility trial with embedded health economic evaluation and qualitative interviews, recruited patients aged 18–80 years from two UK cardiac centres who had undergone elective or urgent cardiac surgery via a median sternotomy. Eligible, consenting participants were randomised 1:1 by a remote, centralised randomisation service to postoperative outpatient review 6 weeks after hospital discharge, followed by CR commencement from 8 weeks (control), or postoperative outpatient review 3 weeks after hospital discharge, followed by commencement of CR from 4 weeks (intervention). The primary outcome measures related to trial feasibility including recruitment, retention, CR adherence, and acceptability to participants/staff. Secondary outcome measures included health-rated quality of life using EQ-5D-5L, NHS resource-use, Incremental Shuttle Walk Test (ISWT) distance, 30- and 90-day mortality, surgical site complications and hospital readmission rates. Results: Fifty participants were randomised (25 per group) and 92% declared fit for CR. Participant retention at final follow-up was 74%; completion rates for outcome data time points ranged from 28 to 92% for ISWT and 68 to 94% for follow-up questionnaires. At each time point, the mean ISWT distance walked was greater in the intervention group compared to the control. Mean utility scores increased from baseline to final follow-up by 0.202 for the intervention (0.188 control). Total costs were £1519 for the intervention (£2043 control). Fifteen participants and a research nurse were interviewed. Many control participants felt their outpatient review and CR could have happened sooner; intervention participants felt the timing was right. The research nurse found obtaining consent for willing patients challenging due to discharge timings. Conclusion: Recruitment and retention rates showed that it would be feasible to undertake a full-scale trial subject to some modifications to maximise recruitment. Lower than expected recruitment and issues with one of the clinical tests were limitations of the study. Most study procedures proved feasible and acceptable to participants, and professionals delivering early CR. Trial registration: ISRCTN80441309 (prospectively registered on 24/01/2019).

Older patients with lower limb amputation, categorised as having “limited community mobility”, are under-researched. Understanding their experience with a new prosthetic ankle-foot is important whe...